Alice in Wonderland

Directed by Tim Burton. Adapted from Lewis Carroll by Linda Woolverton. Released 2010. Rated PG.

I am amazed that Alice in Wonderland can still pull in a crowd. It is a drug-induced story by a man who may or may not have had a pedophiliac relationship with the title character. Yet, Lewis Carroll’s (or Charles Dodgson’s, if you will) unfathomable imagination and lyrical nonsense have intrigued readers and audiences for over a hundred years. However, now we are in an age of story-telling that has minimized lyricism and emphasized visuals. We are left with the nightmarish characters of an imagination that transfers poorly to realism. Who better than Tim Burton, right? Well, hold on to your popcorn, he actually did a decent job. Despite his reputation for surrealism, Burton delivers the safest image of Wonderland yet. It may not be the most canonical, but he’s done Disney proud. At least he’s done Disney a new money trophy.

Oh, Tim Burton. At first, I forgot that he was the director. London seemed so sterile. It all came crashing back to me when Alice started her tumble down the rabbit hole. The next blazing paced sequence dropped her into a dark world of prophecy and violence, complete with grotesque, classical faerie-tale maiming. But then it was over. Tim Burton put a reign on his imagination and never beat you in the head with his stylistic choices again, even in other dangerous moments.

But watch this movie in 2-D. Of course the trend is fun to be a part of, but 3-D actually detracts from this movie. Sure, the Caterpillar’s hooka smoke looks cool, and sure the Cheshire Cat has some novel perspective, but Burton’s framing is wasted if you spend the entire movie hoping for the depth of Avatar. Most every shot is brilliantly composed from left to right. I would take off my glasses and revel in the color schemes and placements. Then I would put the glasses back on and gaze at the emphasized depth of Helena Bonham Carter’s forehead. Not worth it.

In fact, color choice was a trend that I couldn't get over. In the beginning, Alice is in London and grudgingly attends a well-to-do. Everyone at the party is wearing white with dull, earthy tones like brown, tan, or occasional subdued gold. Alice, on the other hand, is wearing sky blue. Obviously, Alice has differing values from the other guests, except for her sister, who also wears blue even though she seems to be at home with everyone else. Nothing extraordinary except that Burton’s choices are always so blatant that he makes it part of some caricature that only he seems to fully comprehend.

Most are color themes are easy to grasp. The Red, violent, and passionate queen is the villain and the White, serene, and liberal queen is the side of justice. What I couldn't figure out was the connection between the White party in London and the White kingdom in Wonderland.

For being such a blockbuster, Alice has a surprisingly unmotivated plot. This fits the world of Wonderland, but sits unevenly with the epic atmosphere that Tim Burton attempts to create. Alice is thrown from situation to situation, all very exciting, but she barely lifts a finger in her own self interest. Things just happen to Alice, who allows it because she knows it’s "her dream" and nothing more.

She struggles each step of the way with her own integrity. Her mother wants her to be this, the rabbit wants her to be that. In response, the Hatter, Johnny Depp, says that Alice has lost her "muchness." "Why is it that you are always too small or too big?" These concepts culminate well with the climax, but it leaves the journey rather tasteless.

How serious should this be taken? Does Alice care? Do we? Add to this the necessary element of every character being more than half-crazy, and it seems like random elements simply lead to a fated outcome rather than one that Alice actually reasoned out. Which is both contradictory with, and discussed in, the plot.

Johnny Depp may have been a good choice for a Mad Hatter, but he was more distracting than entertaining since Linda Woolverton, the screen writer, had to spend so much time on him make him into a sympathetic character. I never wanted to buy it for a minute. The make-up artists blacked a gap in his teeth that never convinced, and the whistle he tried to affect for it only sounded like an inconsistent lisp. The tirades of Scottish brogue and stifled whisper never got a chuckle out of me, or the audience I was sitting with.

Now, Mia Wasikowska, Alice, had some interesting parts. We all saw that she ends up with a sword from the trailers, right? Well, she knew how to use it. Better than Depp knew how to use his. Most of her exultant moments surround the ending when she exemplified boldness and endeavor. When she was simply a bemused face, tripping through Wonderland she was typically boring, but I was more than satisfied to see her get her ire up. Backing up Wasikowska's performance of Alice was Mairi Ella Challen as the 6 year old Alice. She was so charming that I spend a lot of time wishing the movie was about her than the 19 year old Alice.

The rest of the cast did their jobs well. Helena Bonham Carter and Anne Hathaway absolutely sealed their parts, though the characters were not equal. Even the bizarrely enhanced toadies of the Red Queen felt entirely at home, though Crispin Glover's CG enhancements as Stayne were jerky at times. My personal favorites were the slimy servants of the Red Queen: the deep, bass voiced frogs and slithery fish.

I’m not a big Wonderland fan, and I left not quite satisfied in the entire experience, but very content with the conclusion. I'd say rent not buy, and if you really want the theater experience, watch the 2-D version.

Public Enemies

Directed by Michael Mann, Rated R, Released 2009. Based on real events.

Public Enemies is the based-on-a-true story version of the FBI's investigation and hunt for John Dillinger, a notorious bank robber of the 1930's. The two sides are represented by Christian Bale as the head agent of the FBI and Johnny Depp as John Dillinger. It is a fast paced, heavily plot driven story with dazzling gun fights, ingenious escapes, and masterfully performed strategies from both parties.

Public Enemies is a gangster movie, and it plays hard like a gangster movie. Guns blaze, cars are jumped on and fired out of in that iconic 1930's gangster way, and the women are classy and impeccable. John Dillinger and his gang are unstoppable bank robbers, but find some new competition in the agents of the newly formed FBI. J Edgar Hoover is up to his neck in bad publicity and desperately needs Mr. Melvin Purvis, Christian Bale, to take the Bureau to the next level by stopping Dillinger and his gang. The only problem is that the FBI is full of green-horns who can't keep up with the keen criminal minds of the gangsters.

Its give and take as we watch both sides play their hands, taking turns on both cruelty and sympathy. The gangsters do some expectedly heavy damage to the police and banking worlds, and Mr. Purvis is always playing in the periphery of his name's homophone, 'perverse,' though the other agents are usually the real culprits.

There is so much intrigueing and good about this film that its a real shame that I can't recommend it hands down, but there are two gray areas that I can't seem to get over.

Issue number one, this story is almost entirely plot driven. That's not a bad thing at all. However, we are thrown into the rich life of John Dillinger with none of his integral background given to us other than a title card at the beginning that says the 1930's were the 'golden age of bank robbing.' I feel that this is a mistake. Without crucial information on who this man is, we understand nothing for why we should care about him more than any murderer, which he was. Perhaps it is simply my own ignorance, almost certainly the case, but I will try to add some of the information I wish I had prior to watching this movie at the end of the review or in the comments section.

Issue number two, the hand-held cameras. The movie was going swimmingly, until the last 1/3 of it. Suddenly, in the middle of a gun fight, the cameras change to hand-helds. Not only do the cameras change, but the sound equipment as well. The guns no longer sound like the guns we have been hearing the whole movie, but instead sound like the stunt guns they are actually shooting on set. It starts to feel like a making-of DVD or a History Channel special. It really ruined it for me. It doesn't stop with that scene either, but continues interchanging with the regular camera work for the rest of the movie, making for some very awkward viewing. (update: 10 minutes after posting. http://www.examiner.com/x-3938-Houston-Movie-Examiner~y2009m7d3-Public-Enemies-review explains that what Mann did was use HD digital cameras, and that's why the picture changes. Its effect escaped me, but maybe it won't escape you.)

And that's it for hard complaints. I could disregard my first complaint with the context they give you throughout the movie, but the second one stuck with me. I wish I didn't have to say all of this, because I think it was a great movie, but there we are. If you know better why Mr. Mann chose to do the movie this way, please share, I'd love to be proven wrong. Heck, I'll even blame my local theater.

Rated R for violence (some of the images of gun wounds were pretty graphic), and some minor language.